KITCHENER — A Kitchener father is upset that police arrested him at his children's school Wednesday, hauled him down to the station and strip-searched him, all because his four-year-old daughter drew a picture of a gun at school.

“I was in shock. This is completely insane. My daughter drew a gun on a piece of paper at school.”

The school principal, police and child welfare officials, however, all stand by their actions. They said they had to investigate to determine whether there was a gun in Sansone’s house that children had access to.

“From a public safety point of view, any child drawing a picture of guns and saying there’s guns in a home would warrant some further conversation with the parents and child,” said Alison Scott, executive director of Family and Children’s Services.

Waterloo Regional Police Insp. Kevin Thaler said there was a complaint from Forest Hills public school that “a firearm was in a residence and children had access to it. We had every concern, based on this information, that children were in danger.”

Their concern wasn’t based on the drawing alone, he said.

Neaveh, the child who made the drawing, also made comments about it that raised more flags.

Sansone thinks police overreacted. He didn’t find out until hours after his arrest what had actually sparked the incident.

He said he went to the school Wednesday afternoon to pick up his three children. He was summoned to the principal’s office where three police officers were waiting. They said he was being charged with possession of a firearm.

He was escorted from the school, handcuffed and put in the back of a cruiser.

At the same time, other police officers went to his home, where his wife and 15-month-old child were waiting for his return.

They made his wife come to the police station while the other three children were taken to Family and Children’s Services to be interviewed.

“Nobody was given any explanation,” said his wife, Stephanie Squires. “I didn’t know why he was being arrested.

“He had absolutely no idea what this was even about. I just kept telling them. ‘You’re making a mistake.’ ”

At the police station, Sansone talked to a lawyer who said only that he was being charged with possession of a firearm, Sansone said.

He kept asking questions. He was given a blanket and told he would appear before a judge in the morning to post bail.

“I was getting pretty scared at that point,” Sansone said. “It seemed like I was actually being charged at this point.”

He was forced to remove his clothes for a full strip search.

Several hours later, a detective apologized and said he was being released with no charges, Sansone said.

The detective told him that his four-year-old daughter had drawn a picture of a man holding a gun. When a teacher asked her who the man was, the girl replied, “That’s my daddy’s. He uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters.”

“To be honest with you, I broke down,” Sansone said. “My character got put down so much. I was actually really hurt, like it could happen that easy.

“How do you recognize a criminal from a father?’’

He said he thought he had good relations with the principal who offered him a job last year counselling students at the school.

“We’re educated,’’ he said. “I’m a certified PSW (personal support worker) and a life issues counsellor. I go into schools to try to make a difference.’’

After he was released, Sansone was asked to sign a paper authorizing a search of his home. He signed, even though he didn’t have to, he said.

“I just think they blew it out of proportion,’’ Squires said. “It was for absolutely nothing. They searched our house upside down and found nothing. They had the assumption he owned a firearm.

“The way everything happened was completely unnecessary, especially since we know the school very well. I don’t understand how they came to that conclusion from a four-year-old’s drawing.’’

Scott, of Family and Children’s Services, said the agency was obligated to investigate after getting a report from the school.

“Our community would have an expectation if comments are made about a gun in a house, we’d be obligated to investigate that to ensure everything is safe.”

If there’s a potential crime that’s been committed, the agency must call in police, she said

“In the end, it may not be substantiated. There may be a reasonable explanation for why the child drew that gun. But we have to go on what gets presented to us.

“I’m sure this was a very stressful thing for the family,” she acknowledged.

The school principal, Steve Zack, said a staff member called child welfare officials because the law requires them to report anything involving the safety or neglect of a child.

The agency chose to involve police, he said.

“Police chose to arrest Jessie here. Nobody wants something like this to happen at any time, especially not at school. But that’s out of my hands.”

Sansone says he got into some trouble with the law five years ago, and was convicted of assault and attempted burglary. But he’s put all that behind him. He never had any firearms-related charges.

As for the strip search, Thaler said it was done “for officer safety, because it’s a firearms-related incident.

“At the point in the investigation when it was determined it was not a real firearm, the individual was released unconditionally,” he said.

I don't recall hearing such a story under previous governments.Any specifics?

This sounds very much like the influence of Harper's fake tough on crime stance trickling down to the local police level. Just like the case in Ontario that a smart judge had to throw out to prevent a dumbass from having to spend 3 years in jail for taking a picture with a gun.

I don't recall hearing such a story under previous governments.Any specifics?

This sounds very much like the influence of Harper's fake tough on crime stance trickling down to the local police level. Just like the case in Ontario that a smart judge had to throw out to prevent a dumbass from having to spend 3 years in jail for taking a picture with a gun.

So Raiders, are you saying that the police and officials from Family and Child Services were acting under the authority of legislation that has not been passed in the House of Commons? Just on the speculation that the Harper government might pass legislation sometime in the future.

I think, just my opinion of course, they were acting under their interpertation of the current legislation in effect right now. Not some hypothetical legislation that might be brought into effect some time later.

I could, but will not, quote many aspects of the OP's post that show the actions taken by the athorities were based on the current firearms registration legislation and sections of the Criminal Code that deal with said legislation. I also agree with the OP that he should 'sue for false arrest'.

And, before you all start jumping on me for being a supposed "Harperite", I have in the past cheered when the Conservatives were wiped off the political map, and recently when the Liberals met the same fate. I am not a person who automatically votes on party lines, nor do I vote according to who the leader of the party is.

As to your request for specifics of similar cases over the past 10-15 years, I have read of cases along the same lines, but I have no links or specifics that I can offer at this time. I have no doubt I could find them again, but that is/was not the point of my reply to your original post.

My point: This story would have evolved the same way no matter who is/was in power in Ottawa based on the laws of the land as they now stand.

This case is an over reaction of the principal of the school.This is where the story starts and should have been investigated more before the police and child services were called in.Just because a child draws a picture of a gun and then states -“That’s my daddy’s. He uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters.”Does not make it true.What if she drew a UFO and said her daddy was an alien? Would the reaction be the same?The principal jumped to a conclusion based on little facts and for which led to what followed.As for the police and child services involvement,they were just doing what was expected of them i believe.If a school called the police and told them that there was a gun in a home where kids had access to it ,i would think they would investigate it quickly.Same as child services,i hope.

So Raiders, are you saying that the police and officials from Family and Child Services were acting under the authority of legislation that has not been passed in the House of Commons?

No. I'm saying that the rhetoric from the Harper government and the myth he is creating of increasing crime gives license to people who would already be predisposed to do things such as arrest a man for no reason.In their mind their acts are justified because the Prime Minister agrees with them.The false impression that we are in imminent danger all of the sudden creates a culture of fear and over reaction.

So Raiders, are you saying that the police and officials from Family and Child Services were acting under the authority of legislation that has not been passed in the House of Commons?

No. I'm saying that the rhetoric from the Harper government and the myth he is creating of increasing crime gives license to people who would already be predisposed to do things such as arrest a man for no reason.In their mind their acts are justified because the Prime Minister agrees with them.The false impression that we are in imminent danger all of the sudden creates a culture of fear and over reaction.

So are you saying that the police who were called by the principal about a gun available to kids in a home arrested the dad because of Harper views on crime?

As much as I'd like to have a reason to blame this on Harperism, I don't see it that way.

Everyone involved - the school, child services and the local police force - all thought they were doing the right thing. And all those entities are entities of the Ontario provincial government (school, child services) and the municipality of Kitchener-Waterloo (police). No federal involvement.

The only thing that I see is that there was both some over-zealousnous and lack of communication. Had the police been more forthcoming with the father, a lot of this incident could have been avoided. Perhaps, and only perhaps, this over-zealousness might be a result of the new culture of fear being promoted by Harper ... but even that is a bit of a stretch.

This case is an over reaction of the principal of the school.This is where the story starts and should have been investigated more before the police and child services were called in.Just because a child draws a picture of a gun and then states -“That’s my daddy’s. He uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters.”Does not make it true.What if she drew a UFO and said her daddy was an alien? Would the reaction be the same?The principal jumped to a conclusion based on little facts and for which led to what followed.As for the police and child services involvement,they were just doing what was expected of them i believe.If a school called the police and told them that there was a gun in a home where kids had access to it ,i would think they would investigate it quickly.Same as child services,i hope.

I don't think it's the job of the principal to investigate if the father has a gun in the house or not. I don't disagree with him calling child and family services about it.

"He said he went to the school Wednesday afternoon to pick up his three children. He was summoned to the principal’s office where three police officers were waiting. They said he was being charged with possession of a firearm.

He was escorted from the school, handcuffed and put in the back of a cruiser.

At the same time, other police officers went to his home, where his wife and 15-month-old child were waiting for his return.

They made his wife come to the police station while the other three children were taken to Family and Children’s Services to be interviewed."

How can they charge him with firearms possession when at that point they hadn't even searched his home to see if he had a firearm to begin with? It sounds like they went solely on what a 4 year old was telling them. I am not exactly sure what is considered "firearms possession" in regards to being a criminal act but people do have firearms at home and as far as I know it is not against the law to have them in the home.

The police should be the ones that are investigated to make such an arrest without having the evidence nor doing the proper investigation into it. One thing I noticed in the article it doesn't say whether the police had a search warrant to search his home, with the sloppy job they did in investigatiing this I am wondering if they didn't have one or weren't able to get one.

A search warrant was not required as the gentleman signed a form authorizing the search..

Quote:

After he was released, Sansone was asked to sign a paper authorizing a search of his home. He signed, even though he didn’t have to, he said.

Whether or not a warrant was issued is irrelevant.

Quote:

He said he went to the school Wednesday afternoon to pick up his three children. He was summoned to the principal’s office where three police officers were waiting. They said he was being charged with possession of a firearm.

A search warrant was not required as the gentleman signed a form authorizing the search..

Quote:

After he was released, Sansone was asked to sign a paper authorizing a search of his home. He signed, even though he didn’t have to, he said.

Whether or not a warrant was issued is irrelevant.

Quote:

He said he went to the school Wednesday afternoon to pick up his three children. He was summoned to the principal’s office where three police officers were waiting. They said he was being charged with possession of a firearm.

They had already decided to charge him with possession of a firearm.

From what i percieve from the article is this-the police detained the father without chargeing him but did tell the father that he was being charged but never did the paperwork for it.The key words are being charged,i think.

A search warrant was not required as the gentleman signed a form authorizing the search..

Quote:

After he was released, Sansone was asked to sign a paper authorizing a search of his home. He signed, even though he didn’t have to, he said.

I meant at the time he was being detained, after re-reading my post I saw that I didn't make that clear....my bad.

But the point being made is they lead this man out of his kid's school in handcuffs, detained him over night in jail, told he was going to appear before a judge the next morning to post bail and strip searched all without having known where the firearm was or if he even had a firearm. Seems rather odd to me they had to ask him the next day to search his house.....wouldn't need to ask him if they had a warrant and am wondering if they didn't have one because a judge wouldn't sign off on one. I know that is just a guess on my part but seems odd to go through all that and in the end had to ask him to search his house, why ask him when all they had to do was get a judge to sign off on it and search his house while he was detained.

I guess the Principal found himself in a no win situation. If he ignored the comments of the little girl and chalked it up to a vivid imagination and then later on an incident happened in that home with a fire arm, he would be severely criticized for not doing anything. He decided to err on the side of caution. Now he is being criticized for over reacting.

Trying to bring the Prime Minister into this incident is just plain silly.

Actually the principal had no choice but to report it. If they, teachers, medical professionals, etc hear or suspect that a child's welfare is in jeopardy they have to notify Child Services and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the law that they have to report it.

But the point being made is they lead this man out of his kid's school in handcuffs, detained him over night in jail, told he was going to appear before a judge the next morning to post bail and strip searched all without having known where the firearm was or if he even had a firearm. Seems rather odd to me they had to ask him the next day to search his house.....wouldn't need to ask him if they had a warrant and am wondering if they didn't have one because a judge wouldn't sign off on one. I know that is just a guess on my part but seems odd to go through all that and in the end had to ask him to search his house, why ask him when all they had to do was get a judge to sign off on it and search his house while he was detained.

wingman,

You could very well be right. I actually never gave a thought to the possibility that they couldn't get a warrant.